Craig v. Warden, 3:18-CV-030-RLM-MGG. (2019)
Court: District Court, N.D. Indiana
Number: infdco20190412943
Visitors: 12
Filed: Apr. 10, 2019
Latest Update: Apr. 10, 2019
Summary: OPINION AND ORDER ROBERT L. MILLER, JR. , District Judge . Larry Craig, a prisoner without a lawyer, filed a habeas corpus petition challenging his prison disciplinary hearing in WVE 16-12-0042 in which a Disciplinary Hearing Officer at the Westville Correctional Facility found him guilty of assault on staff in violation of offense A-117. ECF 1 at 1. Mr. Craig was sanctioned with the loss of 60 days earned credit time and demoted from Credit Class 1 to Credit Class 2. Id. In this motion,
Summary: OPINION AND ORDER ROBERT L. MILLER, JR. , District Judge . Larry Craig, a prisoner without a lawyer, filed a habeas corpus petition challenging his prison disciplinary hearing in WVE 16-12-0042 in which a Disciplinary Hearing Officer at the Westville Correctional Facility found him guilty of assault on staff in violation of offense A-117. ECF 1 at 1. Mr. Craig was sanctioned with the loss of 60 days earned credit time and demoted from Credit Class 1 to Credit Class 2. Id. In this motion, ..
More
OPINION AND ORDER
ROBERT L. MILLER, JR., District Judge.
Larry Craig, a prisoner without a lawyer, filed a habeas corpus petition challenging his prison disciplinary hearing in WVE 16-12-0042 in which a Disciplinary Hearing Officer at the Westville Correctional Facility found him guilty of assault on staff in violation of offense A-117. ECF 1 at 1. Mr. Craig was sanctioned with the loss of 60 days earned credit time and demoted from Credit Class 1 to Credit Class 2. Id.
In this motion, the Warden seeks dismissal of this case, stating that the final reviewing authority has vacated the finding of guilt and the associated sanctions.1 Based on this recent development, this case is moot. See Hadley v. Holmes, 341 F.3d 661, 664 (7th Cir. 2003) (prisoner can challenge prison disciplinary determination in habeas proceeding only when it resulted in a sanction that lengthened the duration of his confinement).
For these reasons, the court:
(1) GRANTS the motion to dismiss (ECF 17);
(2) DISMISSES this case; and
(3) DIRECTS the clerk to close this case.
FootNotes
1. The Warden has attached documents in support of this contention. See ECF 17-2, ECF 17-3.
Source: Leagle
